No BrEntry: the EU never allows the UK to join

Would the UK be better off economically today if they didn’t join the EU


  • Total voters
    122
IOTL, the UK unsuccessfully tried to join the European Union twice, in 1963 and 1967. Both times, the application was blocked by French President Charles de Gaulle. The EU finally accepted the Uk’s application in 1969, after de Gaulle had stepped down.

My question is fairly simple: Would the UK today be better or worse off economically if the UK had not been allowed to join the EU in 1969, had stopped trying after this, and had never joined?

Please explain why you think the UK would be better off economically today or why the UK would be worse off today. Remember, I’m only asking about the UK being economically better or worse off. That is higher or lower per capita GDP.

ETA: Please don't discuss whether UK will be better off with Brexit. We all know the answer to that question: A fight that ends with no one being happy.

Also, forgive my typos in the poll, including the omission of a question mark at the end of the quesion and the omission of the word "be" in the answers. Oops. And any other typos.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about this situation this morning.

My take on it is this: Britain did not join for the same reason as the Continental countries did. The European Project started as a stability mechanism in what was a chaotic post WW2 world. Later, it was seen as a modernising mechanism for the former Eastern bloc countries and indeed Spain and Portugal.

For Britain, it needed neither stabilising I.e, to escape the prospect of tyranny, nor did it need modernising. The reason why Britain joined was because its post-War decline seemed relentless and unstoppable. If I’m correct, I recall reading a passage that MacMillan’s original thoughts on the EEC was that it would become a “replacement” to the British Empire. That’s a total misrepresentation of the European Project, it’s power comes by pooling many powers together, it’s not to be used as a means to make any one country more powerful than the others. Britain voted yes to remain in 1975 because it felt had no other option to. The economy was crumbling and union militantism was rife. The only people who did not want to join was communists, fascists and the Powellite right.

Fast forward to 1979 and the British economy was placed under IMF controls. 6 years after joining the EEC, the economy essentially got worse-this SUGGESTS that in the immediate term EEC membership had no effect for the British economy—and why would it? The plan for wealth distribution by constant economic growth and the constant growth of the public sector led to enormous inflation and a deterioration in real living standards by 1979. Britain’s economic problems, which it looked to the EU to solve, was it’s own fiscal model.

So we can say if Britain never joined the EEC at least until 1979, things could remain generally the same. It was Thatcher who controlled inflation and brought back steady economic growth. I don’t agree with the shameful lack of regard for industry for manufacturing the Thatcherites had, but generally the mid 1980s was when Britain’s post war fortunes began to improve. I would say that in this ATL, Thatcher would want in the mid 80s some kind of access to the EEC and since the single market wasn’t invented then, I could see her negotiating a free trade deal with the EU by day the late 80s.

Ignoring the inevitable battles in the story party that would ensue about how close Britain should get to Europe, we can suggest that since Britain wasn’t in the EEC it wouldn’t join the ERM, meaning the events that led to Thatchers downfall probably wouldn’t happen. That leads to the question of whether or not Kinnock would win in 1992, or if there would be a hung parliament, or she wins another majority.

Let’s go for an in between, there’s a hung parliament, thatcher steps down and by 1992 you have Clark or Heseltine or Portillo leading the party. Regardless of their views of Europe, they are all pro business and would negotiate some kind of bilateral deal with the EU-maybe free movement of people or whatever. Now even though Britain is still not in the EU, it should have zero tariffs if there is a good trade deal, that should mean that supply chains would still be Cross-Channel as it is today. Passporting rights for the City only came in the past 10 years or so, so I don’t see the City being any smaller.

Very, very long story later, I honestly think we would be where we are now. Not much change if I’m honest. Britain would continue to muddle about EU entry for decades and would look like Norway or Switzerland. The paradox is, without the Uk, the EU might integrate far more quickly in This timeline, and would exceed a point of integration that Britain would feel comfortable joining. Gordon Brown didn’t have much time for Europe (I’m surprised he’s not a Brexiteer), but Blair always did, so I can see some plan in the early 00s for Britain to join the EU as a potential point of downfall for Blair. Other than that, I think it would be the same as it is now. The only change would be canvassing would start for the 2020 elections next year-with Prime Minister George Osbourne.
 
I forgot the biggest problem of them all-the Irish border issue.

Ireland still had a hard border until the 90s in OTL so that wouldn’t change. So we can, looking at the current solutions to the backstop, inter the following things could happen.

1. Blair takes us into the Customs Union. Unlikely because Gordon Brown would hate it.

2. The EU moves Ireland’s border. This is possible to an extent but I don’t think it would be good PR for the rest of the EU.

3. Blair pledges to keep Britain in alignment with EU standards to avoid a hard border. This may not be possible if Britain has had an independent trade policy for 30 years.

4. Come up with a special solution from scratch to fix the problem-possibly the most likely.

5. Hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on continuing being part of the UK in the late 90s and acknowledge a hard border forever. Not too sure if Blair would risk a potentially devastatingly divisive referendum.

I mean it’s really out to the jury to decide how the Irish border problem is solved in a world Britain never joins the EU!
 
I'm not sure that the Irish situation develops in the same manner. Firstly, it is not a complete given that Ireland would join the EEC in 1973 without Britain, although it is certainly possible. Secondly, the particular issues of Irish borders are related to the Belfast Agreement, which might not be exactly the same with fairly substantial political and economic changes that come hand in hand with Britain not being in the EEC/EC/EU.

More broadly, I don't think that the exact same political figures, with all of their character and associated baggage, would necessarily emerge in a different setting at the same times as @, particularly 50 years after the point of departure. We can oft make the presumption that our current course of events is the most likely and inevitable, but with half a century of potential change, we more likely won't be in a facsimile of our contemporary situation.

In answer to the initial question, I tend towards agreement with SadSprinter's position that EEC membership did not play the decisive role in the broad movements of the British economy in the 1970s-1990s, so I'd go for the middle ground of roughly the same, leaning towards ever so slightly better.
 
The ex-Dominions were pretty annoyed for being dumped for Europe. The UK is going to love it when they get dumped for Asia.
 
The Commonwealth agricultural trade issue comes down to Australia and New Zealand. It hit the Kiwis pretty badly, but Australian trade with Asia, firstly with Japan and later with China et al, was a bit broader and based on raw materials, such as iron and coal. It still struck Australian butter and apple producers, for example, badly.

Without the break of BrEntry, we'd be a little bit better off in the immediate term, at least until the economic problems coming from the oil shock and associated issues kick in. I can't see the drivers for 'dumping' trade with Britain in preference for Asia, as they are for different types of goods, at least from the position of the early 1970s.

Concorde would still be a workable proposition; not so sure about the Chunnel.
 
The paradox is, without the UK, the EU might integrate far more quickly in this timeline...
I'd be careful with that assumption, whilst the UK was often portrayed as the panto villain of the piece there were often other member states who were just as against certain EEC/EU policies but were content to let the UK take the lead or simply played the diplomatic game better. IIRC Margaret Thatcher was a major proponent of the Single Market, without the UK as a member the more protectionist member states will have more influence. The EEC/EU would probably keep heading in that direction but it could end up being a slower process than in our timeline.

On the general question of the thread the UK would stay in EFTA, then likely EEA, and stay there ending up in a better position than it currently finds itself.
 
On the general question of the thread the UK would stay in EFTA, then likely EEA, and stay there ending up in a better position than it currently finds itself.
EFTA would probably have to develop significantly differently than OTL for it to be a long term option for the UK. It currently works for a smaller country like Norway or Switzerland which would have a relatively small amount of influence on the EU if it were a member, but I don't think it's tenable to have a major European country accept vast swathes of EU legislation whilst not having a seat at the table, particularly after Maastricht. Either we would see reform to give EFTA countries a greater role in decision making, creating something along the lines of a two speed Europe option that has often been talked about, or we would see the UK abandon that relationship altogether, and we'd either have another go at becoming a fully fledged member, or we'd leave EFTA altogether and opt for something looser.
 

Devvy

Donor
EFTA would probably have to develop significantly differently than OTL for it to be a long term option for the UK. It currently works for a smaller country like Norway or Switzerland which would have a relatively small amount of influence on the EU if it were a member, but I don't think it's tenable to have a major European country accept vast swathes of EU legislation whilst not having a seat at the table, particularly after Maastricht. Either we would see reform to give EFTA countries a greater role in decision making, creating something along the lines of a two speed Europe option that has often been talked about, or we would see the UK abandon that relationship altogether, and we'd either have another go at becoming a fully fledged member, or we'd leave EFTA altogether and opt for something looser.

The EEA was supposed to give full EFTA-EU integration in the economic realm, but Switzerland's refusal to endorse this by referendum (by the narrowest of margins) scuppered the plan.

I think you'd end up with a process where the EU proposes single market legislation, then a common EU-EFTA session accepts this before the normal EU legislative processes kick in. That said, I agree with some others that the UK not being in the EU might allow the EU to integrate more fully; you might see some further political integration steps, which would then trickle back down to form a single market as the UK wouldn't be there to push the economic integration and single market adoption directly.
 
I mean it’s really out to the jury to decide how the Irish border problem is solved in a world Britain never joins the EU!
In a world where Britain never joins the EU, there isn't really an Irish border problem. There is an Irish border. No shared EU membership, no open border, no assumptions made in the Good Friday agreement.
 
It currently works for a smaller country like Norway or Switzerland which would have a relatively small amount of influence on the EU if it were a member, but I don't think it's tenable to have a major European country accept vast swathes of EU legislation whilst not having a seat at the table, particularly after Maastricht.
Norway currently has to follow roughly 28% of EU legislation, but they follow more due to simply deciding that it's easier than setting their own standards/rules in certain areas. They get to help shape EU legislation which touches on areas that which will affect them, and have the ability to reject implementing any of it which they believe infringes their sovereignty. Even the 28% is something of a blunt measure since it just counts the number of acts/directives without giving any weight to what they cover e.g. ones which define what jam is versus setting out budgetary contributions of the member states.

That sounds pretty much like something the UK could live with, and since the UK is the world's fifth largest economy—plus Ireland and Denmark who stayed out due to the amount of trade they had with the UK, IIRC Norway as well—would be in everyone's interests to see come about.
 
Norway currently has to follow roughly 28% of EU legislation, but they follow more due to simply deciding that it's easier than setting their own standards/rules in certain areas. They get to help shape EU legislation which touches on areas that which will affect them, and have the ability to reject implementing any of it which they believe infringes their sovereignty. Even the 28% is something of a blunt measure since it just counts the number of acts/directives without giving any weight to what they cover e.g. ones which define what jam is versus setting out budgetary contributions of the member states.

That sounds pretty much like something the UK could live with, and since the UK is the world's fifth largest economy—plus Ireland and Denmark who stayed out due to the amount of trade they had with the UK, IIRC Norway as well—would be in everyone's interests to see come about.
Yes, but included in that 28% of legislation are some pretty major things-most notably freedom of movement, which was arguably the biggest reason for the push for the referendum in the first place. That will be even backlash will be even bigger if the UK has been effectively made to accept that, rather than actively shaped it as an EU member. There's a reason why it didn't get a majority of the Commons in indicative votes- although there is some flexibility, it does mean basically accepting EU rules without having a say in them-that means that both leavers and remainers object to it in favour of either leaving all EU structures, or becoming a fully fledged member.
 
The only people who did not want to join was communists, fascists and the Powellite right.

That's a serious misrepresentation of the Leave vote in 1975. If opposition were just fringe nutters, the referendum would never have been called in the first place.
 
Anyway, the butterflies on New Zealand are truly immense. You may well extend the life of the 1972-1975 Labour Government, and you certainly butterfly the extremes of 1975-1993, including the adoption of MMP.

Congratulations: you've just changed the voting system in a country on the other side of the planet. :)
 
The British and Danish entries to EEC were strong factors to Finnish participation as well, since the British markets were vitally important for the Finnish paper and forestry industries.

So if the UK stays in EFTA, Denmark might follow suit, and one could see more Soviet willingness to accept the Nordek proposals as a counterbalance to EFTA and ECC. And should Nordek go ahead, then the later European integration would follow a different route.
 
That's a serious misrepresentation of the Leave vote in 1975. If opposition were just fringe nutters, the referendum would never have been called in the first place.

My point was that the offical No campaign was mostly from the fringe side. Clearly in the electorate there were many (understandable) reasons to leave the EEC and I presume that a substantial amount of the Remain votes were a "cautious remain" rather than a wholesale endorsement of the project.
 

Zen9

Banned
Uk not entering the EEC does exert effects on the likes of Denmark and Finland.
It may also be felt in Belgium and the Netherlands.
All major trading partners with the UK.
This raises questions about Sweden too, but I'm no expert on their politics of the period.

One might ponder the UK relationship with the likes of South Africa in this scenario and indeed Africa generally.

Would the UK be better off. ..?
Too many swings and roundabouts to say.
But the hide problem is the hundred year obsession with fixing the value of the pound.
Until the ERM crisis that literally forced the pound to float on the echanges. There was no desire beyond niche economists and no confidence among UK leadership.
Irony is after the peturbations settled down the value got very close to John Major's figure.
But the market had to test that to believe it.

No EEC entry could accelerate this and float the pound early. Or the UK could manage it's currency exchange and continue to mess up the economy in the process.
 
Yes, but included in that 28% of legislation are some pretty major things-most notably freedom of movement, which was arguably the biggest reason for the push for the referendum in the first place.
It was certainly a large issue but I'm not sure it was the issue with Leave voters. IIRC opinion polls since then have put it well down the list of people's concerns, now whether that was due to a feeling of "It's done and settled" or otherwise I couldn't say – I'd have to go back and look at the numbers in more detail or ask people who are more knowledgeable. Of course if we're going back that far and changing major things like Britain's entry then other smaller changes are much easier to have happen such as the retention of entry and exit controls. Having a proper system would go a fair way to knocking the legs out from under the immigration issue as IIRC the UK is much more generous than it legally has to be in paying benefits straight away since they've got no way to prove or disprove people the length of time people have been in the country.
 
It was certainly a large issue but I'm not sure it was the issue with Leave voters. IIRC opinion polls since then have put it well down the list of people's concerns, now whether that was due to a feeling of "It's done and settled" or otherwise I couldn't say – I'd have to go back and look at the numbers in more detail or ask people who are more knowledgeable. Of course if we're going back that far and changing major things like Britain's entry then other smaller changes are much easier to have happen such as the retention of entry and exit controls. Having a proper system would go a fair way to knocking the legs out from under the immigration issue as IIRC the UK is much more generous than it legally has to be in paying benefits straight away since they've got no way to prove or disprove people the length of time people have been in the country.
I'm not necessarily arguing that immigration was the primary reason we voted leave, I'm more saying that it did the most to bring us the referendum in the first place. Cameron felt obliged to include on in the Conservative manifesto due to the rise of UKIP, and it can't be denied that Farage focused pretty squarely on the issue of immigration at that time. At some point since then the debate has shifted to become about something more than just freedom of movement-but it did provide the main impetus for the process that created Brexit-and I think that it's quite likely something similar would happen in a UK in an EFTA style arrangement with the EU.
 
Top